Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Winter2009 ■ Volume876©2009bytheAmericanCounselingAssociation.Allrightsreserved.

As counselors go through the 1st decade of the 21st century, it is clear that U.S. society and schools continue to evolve and change at a rapid pace. The United States’ increasingly diverse student bodies throughout the country reflect a myriad of needs in the interrelated areas of educational achievement, social-behavioral adjustment, and career development. The de-mographics of the U.S. population are shifting with an increase in the numbers of school-age children, as well as increases in racial and ethnic diversity. Public school enrollment is up to an estimated 48.7 million, prekindergarten through 12th grade, and is projected to grow to 51.2 million by 2015. From 1972 to 2004, the percentage of Caucasian students has dropped from 78% to 57%, whereas the proportion of Hispanic students during that period jumped from 6% to 19% (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2006) and has accounted for 50% of the population growth in the United States from July 1, 2004, to July 1, 2005 (Bernstein, 2006). There has been an increase of students identified with disabilities and an estimated 6.6 million children who received special educa-tion services in 2004 under federal law, which is up from 3.7 million in 1977. The number of children ages 5 to 17 years who speak a language other than English at home more than doubled between 1979 and 2004, increasing from 3.8 million to 9.9 million (NCES, 2006).

Statistics indicate that the poverty level in the United States has continued to rise since the year 2000, with 18%, or 13.2 million children, under the age of 18 years living below the federal poverty level (Douglas-Hall & Chau, 2008). Poverty is associated with negative outcomes for children. It can impede children’s cognitive development and their ability to learn and can contribute to behavioral, social, and emotional problems. Urban schools that often have large poor and minority student populations have significant and unique issues that need to be addressed by educators in general and school counselors specifically (C. C. Lee, 2005).

The achievement gap between Caucasian and poor and minority students, specifically African American and Hispanic students, continues to be an important and controversial educa-tional issue, with the gap continuing to widen (Education Trust, 2000b). Recent educational statistics also show a gendergap with girls as a group achieving at a higher level than boys, and fewer young men than young women enrolling in and complet-ing college (Clark, Oakley, & Adams, 2006; NCES, 2006).

The school counseling profession has gone through a major transformation in the past decade, as reflected in the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) national standards (Campbell & Dahir, 1997), the ASCA (2005a) National Model, and the Education Trust’s (1997) Transforming School Counseling Initiative movement, all of which emphasize the essential principle of working to help allstudents be successful in school. Furthermore, recent legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2002), a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) have provided the legal foundation for schools to improve educational outcomes for all students (Felton, 2005; Yell, Katsiyannas, & Shiner, 2006). Additionally, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights piece of legis-lation that has supported accommodations for students with disabilities that have not been covered under IDEA (Council of Administrators of Special Education, 1999). For example, students who may have been diagnosed with attention-defi-cit/hyperactivity disorder or specific mental or physical health issues may receive classroom accommodations, such as extended time on assignments or specific classroom seating. The application and implementation of this legislation has increased greatly in recent years, resulting in more students receiving classroom accommodations.

NCLB (2002) requires that all schools demonstrably improve achievement so that all public school students

Mary Ann ClarkandJennifer Crandall Breman,DepartmentofCounselorEducation,UniversityofFlorida.JenniferCrandallBremanisnowatSchoolBoardofAlachuaCounty,Gainesville,Florida.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoMaryAnnClark,DepartmentofCounselorEducation,UniversityofFlorida,Box1170�6,Gainesville,FL�2611-70�6(e-mail:maclark@coe.ufl.edu).

School Counselor Inclusion: A Collaborative Model to Provide Academic and Social-Emotional Support in the Classroom SettingMary Ann Clark and Jennifer Crandall Breman

Theincreasinglydiversestudentdemographicsreflectamyriadofneeds inthe interrelatedarenasofeducationalachievement,social-behavioraladjustment,andcareerdevelopment,whilefederallegislation,theethicalstandardsoftheAmericanSchoolCounselorAssociation(ASCA;200�a),andtheASCA(2005a)NationalModelhaveemphasizedacademicachievementandsuccessforallstudents.Thisarticledescribesanewmodelofschoolcounselor“inclusion”thatinvolvescollaborationwithclassroomteachersandchangesthesettingofschoolcounselorinterventionstotheclassroomforsmall-groupandindividualwork.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Winter2009 ■ Volume87 7

SchoolCounselorInclusion:ACollaborativeModel

are proficient by the end of the 2013–2014 school year. An accountability system of measurable milestones called adequateyearlyprogress requires states and schools to use numerical data to provide evidence of improved student outcomes for all subgroups, which include students who are economically disadvantaged, students from racial and ethnic subgroups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency (Yell et al., 2006).

Although NCLB (2002) has a more general, academic focus, IDEA (2004) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 add a focus on the individual student, with supports offered for social and behavioral components as well as the academic dimension. Other IDEA concepts include the least restrictive learning environment, stipulating that a student’s placement will maximize the student’s integration in the classroom, and normalization, which ensures that students will be taught basic skills necessary for living a normal life. As the pressure to meet higher academic standards for all students has increased, the corresponding pressure on educators to produce results has also increased. The ASCA (2005a) National Model has recommended that counselors spend 80% of their time in direct services with students. Large-group classroom guidance, small-group work, and individual counseling are the traditional interventions that counselors have used to directly affect students in a develop-mental, comprehensive school counseling program (Gysbers & Henderson, 2006; Myrick, 2003). The Transforming School Counseling Initiative movement (Education Trust, 1997) and the implementation of the ASCA National Model have increased the emphasis on the role of consultation and collaboration among school counselors and important stakeholders: the students, their parents, teachers, and administrators. Serving as educational leaders and advocates for student success has created new and important roles for school counselors to be involved at systemic levels of change and reform to promote access to opportunities for all students (Clark & Stone, 2007; DeVoss & Andrews, 2006; House & Martin, 1998; Stone & Dahir, 2006).

Paradoxically, pulling students out of class for direct services, which has been the traditional way of carrying out small-group and individual counseling, is becoming an increasingly difficult undertaking (Carpenter, King-Sears, & Keys, 1998). Many teachers in today’s teaching environment are less willing to let students leave their classrooms for coun-seling interventions because missing class time means less academic time available to include preparation for high-stakes tests required by NCLB (2002). Teachers often request that school counselors take students out during “noninstructional” time, such as recess, physical education, art, or music classes, which may be highlights of the day for a struggling student. School counselors, guidance supervisors, and counselor edu-cators are asking the question, How will school counselors be able to work directly with students to help them in the academic and social-emotional arenas if access to students is so limited? In light of the fact that social and behavioral issues can have academic consequences (Elias, Breune-Butler, Blum, & Schuyler, 1997; Kemple, Duncan, & Strangis, 2002;

Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004), it becomes even more pressing for counselors to find innovative ways to provide these important supports to the students.

Although large-group guidance sessions, which are intended to reach the largest number of students about developmental and informational issues (Gysbers & Henderson, 2006; Myrick, 2003), continue to be a foundational part of most counseling programs and are optimally conducted with the involvement of the classroom teacher, individual and small-group work has become much more difficult to schedule. In this article, we propose a new delivery system to work with individual and small-group counseling, within the classroom setting, and in collaboration with teachers. We discuss the background of the inclusion model of education, which was originally used in the field of special education, the rationale for its use, and its ap-plication to school counseling to help better meet the academic and social-behavioral needs of today’s students.

Thinking About InclusionSchool counselors have traditionally been important team players in the process of identification and placement of special education students, as well as consulting on the devel-opment of their individualized educational programs (IEPs; Carpenter et al., 1998; Myrick, 2003; Stone & Dahir, 2006) and, at times, being a direct service provider for counseling. In the special education literature, inclusion refers to providing services to special education students within a regular class-room setting to the extent possible rather than pulling them out for remediation in a special classroom setting. Inclusion has had its growing pains, and there has been much debate in the field of special education about how best to service students in an inclusion model (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002).

The following is a definition of inclusion that we believe is specifically applicable to school counseling interventions (Ferguson, 1995):

Inclusion is a process of meshing general and special edu-cation reform initiatives and strategies in order to achieve a unified system of public education that incorporates all children and youth as active, fully participating members of the school community; that views diversity as the norm; and that ensures a high-quality education for each student by providing meaningful curriculum, effective teaching, and necessary supports for each student. (p. 285)

This definition shifts the concept of special education inclu-sion to a more systemic inclusion. That is, an inclusion model ideally would be one that embraces the concept of providing academic and social-emotional support to all students through a myriad of approaches, a variety of services and innovative interventions in classroom settings, whether or not students receive special education services. Furthermore, if such inclu-sion practices can be potentially applied to all students, then it is less likely that individual students will feel stigmatized because of their learning needs, interests, and preferences.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Winter2009 ■ Volume878

Clark&Breman

Although the original intent of the inclusion model has been to provide services for students identified for special education in the least restrictive environment, the principles can be used for many students who may need help in academic achievement and social-behavioral dimensions of their school lives who may not qualify for such services but who, indeed, could benefit from extra support. Traditionally, the school counselor has often been involved in providing specific coun-seling services as part of an IEP, but such counseling services are usually done in a pullout manner rather than as part of a classroom delivery system. We believe that school counselors can apply the principles of inclusion in their individual and small-group counseling interventions in the classroom setting for a variety of student needs. The aspect of working in the classroom setting is particularly important because students are oftentimes anxious about material they are missing while out of the classroom, or they are embarrassed by the labeling they receive by being pulled out by various service providers (Barry, 1994; Ferguson & Ralph, 1996; Salend & Garrick Duhaney, 1999).

A Systemic Inclusion Model for School Counselors

ASCA has developed a series of position statements about the involvement of the school counselor in a variety of interventions. These statements support the provision of services for all students in the three important domains of academic, personal/social, and career development. According to the position statement (ASCA, 2004b) on students with special needs, professional school counselors are committed to helping all students realize their potential and make adequate yearly progress despite chal-lenges that may result from identified disabilities and other special needs. The position statement (ASCA, 2005b) on comprehensive school counseling programs highlights the collaborative effort between the professional school counselor, other educators, and parents to create an environment that promotes student achieve-ment, values and responds to the diverse needs of students, and ensures equitable access for all students to participate fully in the educational process. Likewise, the Education Trust (1997), in its Transforming School Counseling Initiative, believes that school counselors as leaders and team members work with teachers, parents, administrators, and students, having an enormous impact on student choices and future options. Ideally positioned in the school to serve as student advocates, they can create opportuni-ties for all students to nurture and accomplish high aspirations (Education Trust, 2003a).

The systemic inclusion model that we propose for school counselors is based on principles of direct services in the form of individual and small-group counseling, large-group class-room guidance work, and collaboration and consultation with classroom teachers where the inclusion interventions will take place. The ASCA (2005a) National Model includes the afore-mentioned interventions as a part of responsive services.

Individual and Small-Group Inclusion Interventions

Villa, Thousand, Nevin, and Liston (2005) described several prominently used inclusive instructional strategies that represent best practices in educating a diverse student population. The methods that are particularly congruent with school counselors’ special skill sets and positioning in the school include student col-laboration and peer-mediated instruction, teaching responsibility, peacemaking, self-determination, the use of technology, and the use of supports and accommodations for curricular inclusion. These techniques are important educational themes, and school counselors can choose which methods seem to be best suited to their unique interests and talents, as well as the strategies that best match identified student needs. For example, the principle of student collaboration and peer-mediated instruction could be implemented by using a peer-tutoring or peer-mentoring program (Myrick, 2003) set up by the counselor within the school. Older aged student tutors/mentors (e.g., students at least in Grade 2 for the elementary level) could assist in following up on the school counselor–initiated classroom intervention. Another natural inclusion practice for a counselor would be facilitating responsibility, peacemaking, and self-determination compo-nents. Character education (Wittmer & Clark, 2002), morn-ing classroom meetings (Kriete, 1999), and climate-building strategies could be introduced through large-group sessions and reinforced through small-group and individual classroom interventions. The use of technology is often enhanced by school counselors in classroom settings on a variety of educational and career development topics. When the counselor can make valuable and unique contributions in educational and curricular delivery in an inclusive classroom setting, the importance of being a vital team player is reinforced and appreciated by the various stakeholders.

We recommend the following steps in implementing an individual or small-group classroom inclusion intervention. They represent a compilation of various collaborative con-sultation models (Myrick, 2003; Stone & Dahir, 2006; Wittmer & Clark, 2007). Students may be referred for a variety of reasons to encompass academic and/or social-behavioral concerns that may be keeping the student(s) and others in the classroom from optimal achievement.

1. Referral of the student to the school counselor that may come from a teacher, administrator, parent, or self-referring student.

2. Identification of the problem; gathering information and a review of available records; talking with stakeholders, such as teacher(s), parents, and the administrator.

3. Classroom observation; observing child’s affective and academic status as well as interactions with teacher(s) and peers.

4. Plan in-class intervention; what goals and steps you, as the school counselor, hope to take. It will be optimal

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Winter2009 ■ Volume87 9

SchoolCounselorInclusion:ACollaborativeModel

to involve the teacher at this stage. It is important to note the strengths of the student(s).

5. Implement intervention and modify as necessary. This step may also include the infusion of peer tutoring/mentoring to offer continued student support.

6. Develop a plan to leave with teacher and student(s) for ongoing follow-up after the counselor finishes the classroom intervention. This stage may include reinforcements, system of feedback, and a protocol to be followed.

7. Evaluate and monitor the intervention; the counselor may want to check in with the student(s) and teacher on a periodic basis or do a follow-up classroom ob-servation. Student databases that are updated daily or weekly at the school level are becoming more readily accessible to school counselors and may be used to monitor discipline referrals, absences, and grades.

In working with individuals and groups of students in the class-room setting, the counselor can model, demonstrate, motivate, and coach students in such areas as self-management, conflict resolu-tion and anger management, cooperative peer relations, responsible decision making, and organization and study skills to bring about needed changes. Such interventions can also contribute to a caring and cohesive classroom environment where all students can work to their potential (Wittmer & Clark, 2002; Zins et al., 2004).

Collaboration and consultation are considered to be effective ways to reach many students through the important adults in their lives, such as teachers, parents, and administrators. After the work of the school counselor in the classroom is completed with specific students, student follow-up can be of a collaborative con-sultative nature, where the teacher and school counselor team up to provide ongoing student support. Collaborative consultation, whereby educators work together in an egalitarian way, is now a consultation model that is optimally seen to fit a school setting (Carpenter et al., 1998; Stone & Dahir, 2006). There seems to be consensus among consultation experts that people are more likely to implement change if they are involved in discussing and contributing to the solutions (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 2004; Friend & Cook, 2003). Because of large counselor–student caseloads, we assume that the nature of the school counselor interventions in the classroom will be a brief, solution-focused approach consisting of two to six sessions (Myrick, 2003). It may be desirable for the counselor to do a follow-up observation at some point after the classroom intervention has ended.

Example of School Counselor Inclusion in the Classroom Setting

A conceptual framework of school counselor inclusion is a pyramid model consisting of three tiers, representing the traditional large-group guidance, small-group counseling, and individual work, all taking place in a classroom set-ting. The tiered approach to academic and social-emotional counseling interventions is seen often in both counseling

and special education literature (ASCA, 2005a; Kovaleski, 2003; V. V. Lee & Goodnough, 2007; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). As developmental classroom guidance specialists, school counselors implement large-group lessons and pro-grams as primary interventions to assist all students in their academic, career, and personal-social development (ASCA, 2005a; Goodnough, Perusse, & Erford, 2007; Gysbers & Henderson, 2006; Myrick, 2003). For example, counselors may impart important educational and career information, teach communication and conflict-resolution skills, assist with study skills, orient students to new grade levels and schools, and inform students of guidance and counseling services available in schools as well as issues that may be specific to individual schools (Myrick, 2003).

Small-group and individual work are also important components of a comprehensive school counseling program used to help students who are facing issues that interfere with their personal, social, career, or academic development (ASCA, 2005a; Gysbers & Henderson, 2006; Myrick, 2003). Small groups can help members develop new resources and skills that can address current issues as well as assist in the prevention of future problems. Individual counseling is a dyadic interaction between counselor and client that focuses on the student’s problem or concern with the goal of help-ing the student make positive changes in coping, adapting, or specific behaviors that are problematic (Brown & Trusty, 2005). Traditionally, small-group and individual counseling have been conducted outside the classroom setting, usually in a school counselor’s office or space allotted in the school for small-group work. The school counselor inclusion model pushes the implementation of small-group and individual interventions into the classroom setting.

Implications for School CounselorsWe believe that there are a number of benefits for a systemic school counselor inclusion model. Interventions would take place in a setting that would help students to better transfer new skills to everyday situations. Classroom instruction would be supported by the counselor and would not be missed by students being pulled out of class. Students would be able to practice the skills in the classroom where they would naturally occur. Intervening in the classroom would increase the likelihood of the student behaviors being continued after the school counselor intervention ends. This aspect is particularly important for aca-demic and behavioral concerns for younger students who may be unable to verbalize or conceptualize school success skills. Many of these students may be happy to visit the counselor in the office but may not be able to transfer the counseling session content or skills being shared back to the classroom setting. For many primary grade children, their concrete thinking and use of simpler vocabulary can keep them from understanding and applying the content of such office conferences.

An important part of counseling is assisting students to make decisions that result in a change to more effective be-

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Winter2009 ■ Volume8710

Clark&Breman

haviors. If the school counselor can coach students in school success skills in the classroom with regard to organization, listening and responding in appropriate ways, cooperating with peers, and completing class work and homework in a timely manner, they are more likely to experience success in these areas that can reinforce the application and reoccurrence of these new behaviors. Even with older students, the opportu-nity to practice new skills, even if cognitively understood in an individual counseling session, can be beneficial to making these skills a part of a new repertoire of behavior.

Additionally, having a familiar adult in the classroom to positively assist students can eliminate the stigma that some children feel of being pulled out for special help and can normalize the counseling experience. Teachers appreciate the extra support and collaborative efforts by the counselor in what might otherwise be a frustrating situation in working with students who are struggling academically and/or behaviorally. The entire classroom can benefit from having another adult in the classroom to demonstrate and follow up on necessary school success skills. Students who are not the target students may also be exposed to some new ways of behaving and may benefit indirectly, both as individuals and as a class. Teachers can learn new approaches from working with school counselors, and the counselors can observe and work with students in the real world of the classroom rather than in a more isolated office situation that may not foster goal development and application as readily. Counselors and teachers can collaborate and sup-port each others’ efforts to promote academic achievement as well as social-emotional adjustment. They may also want to consider working with other school team members, such as a school psychologist or curricular specialist, to plan and carry out interventions. Each has unique insights and skill sets to contribute to a team effort, and each can contribute to the instructional program in a school.

Individual and small-group work can be labor intensive, con-sidering the number of students being served, but it is anticipated that the larger classroom will also benefit. Zins et al. (2004) pre-sented evidence that links school success to social and emotional learning and classroom climate. A caring, respectful classroom environment can provide an atmosphere more conducive to, and encouraging of, learning and achievement (Dodd, 2000; Elias et al., 1997). A positive climate affects student achievement and fosters problem-solving skills. Furthermore, by creating nurtur-ing environments, children are increasingly encouraged to want to come to school, thus improving attendance and motivation to learn (Glasser, 1997; Kohn, 1996).

It is anticipated that counselors would be able to develop plans that could be used repeatedly for student/classroom issues, as is the case with small groups that are conducted in a pullout manner. Thus, major themes such as school success skills, organization, cooperating with others in groups, completion of work, classroom conduct, respect for self and others, dealing with peer pressure, and good citizenship are examples of themes that may be frequently addressed. Ultimately, it may be possible to develop a grade-level or schoolwide plan that may encom-

pass these important themes to school success, in an attempt to “reach all students” as required by NCLB (2002), the ASCA (2004a) ethical standards, the ASCA (2005a) National Model, and counselors’ own sense of purpose. With the strong national, state, and local mandates that focus on NCLB, the increased emphasis on increasing academic achievement levels, as well as the provision of educational access and opportunities for all students, it is imperative that school counselors devise new ways of reaching students to help them be the best that they can be. A school counselor inclusion model focusing on the classroom setting that has the goal of benefiting every child and takes into account the diverse needs of the U.S. population with regard to culture, race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status holds a great deal of promise as school counselors look to creating a bright future for all students.

ReferencesAmerican School Counselor Association. (2004a). Ethicalstandards

forschoolcounselors. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=173

American School Counselor Association. (2004b). Positionstate-ment:Special-needsstudents.Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=218

American School Counselor Association. (2005a). TheASCANationalModel:Aframeworkforschoolcounselingprograms. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (2005b). Positionstate-ment: Comprehensive school counseling programs. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=196

Barry, A. L. (1994). Easing into inclusion classrooms. EducationalLeadership, 52, 4–6.

Bernstein, R. (2006, May 10). Nation’s population one-third minor-ity. U.S.CensusBureauNews.Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/006808.html

Brown, D. B., & Trusty, J. (2005). Designingandleadingcomprehensiveschoolcounselingprograms:Promotingstudentcompetenceandmeetingstudentneeds.Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Campbell, C. A., & Dahir, C. A. (1997). Sharing thevision:Thenationalstandardsforschoolcounselingprograms.Alexandra, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Carpenter, S. L., King-Sears, M. E., & Keys, S. G. (1998). Counselors + edu-cators + families as a transdisciplinary team = more effective inclusion for students with disabilities. ProfessionalSchoolCounseling,2, 1–9.

Clark, M. A., Oakley, E., & Adams, H. (2006). The gender achieve-ment gap challenge. ASCASchoolCounselor,43,20–27.

Clark, M. A., & Stone, C. (2007). The developmental school counselor as educational leader. In J. Wittmer & M. A. Clark, Managingyourschoolcounselingprogram:K–12developmentalstrategies(3rd ed., pp. 82–89). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

Council of Administrators of Special Education. (1999). Section504and theADA:Promoting studentaccess (2nd ed.).Arlington, VA: Author.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Winter2009 ■ Volume87 11

SchoolCounselorInclusion:ACollaborativeModel

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. J. (2004). Consultation,collaboration,andteamworkforstudentswithspecialneeds(5th ed.).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

DeVoss, J. A., & Andrews, M. F. (2006). Schoolcounselorsasedu-cationalleaders. Boston: Lahaska Press.

Dodd, A. (2000). Making schools safe for all students: Why schools need to teach more than the 3 R’s. NASSPBulletin,84, 25–31.

Douglas-Hall, A., & Chau, M. (2008). Basicfactsaboutlow-incomechildren: Birth to age 18. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from National Center for Children in Poverty Web site: http://nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_845.pdf

Education Trust. (1997). Workingdefinitionofschoolcounseling.Washington, DC: Author.

Education Trust. (2003a). The foundationsof thefield. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/Transforming+School+Counseling/counseling+background

Education Trust. (2003b). Schoolcounselorsworkingforsocialjustice. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Transforming+School+Counseling/Social+Justice.htm

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C. ch. 70 (1965).

Elias, M., Breune-Butler, L., Blum, L., & Schuyler, T. (1997). How to launch a social and emotional learning program. EducationalLeadership,54, 15–20.

Felton, R. (2005). A New IDEA. Principal Leadership (MiddleSchoolEdition),5, 57–61.

Ferguson, D. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a ‘rabid inclusionist.’ PhiDeltaKappan,77, 281–287.

Ferguson, D. L., & Ralph, G. R. (1996). The changing role of special educators: A development waiting for a trend. ContemporaryEducation,68, 49–51.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions:Collaborationskillsforschoolprofessionals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. PhiDeltaKappan,78, 597–602.

Goodnough, G. E., Perusse, R., & Erford, B. T. (2007). Developmen-tal classroom guidance. In B. T. Erford, Transformingtheschoolcounseling profession (2nd ed., pp. 142–167). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Gysbers, N., & Henderson, P. (2006). Developingandmanagingyourschoolguidanceprogram (4th ed.). Alexandra, VA: American School Counseling Association.

House, R. M., & Martin, P. J. (1998). Advocating for better futures for all stu-dents: A new vision for school counselors. Education,119, 284–291.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 etseq.(2004).

Kemple, K. M., Duncan, R. K., & Strangis, D. (2002). Supporting young children’s peer competence in an era of inclusion. Child-hoodEducation,79, 40–47.

Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. EducationalLeadership,54, 54–55.

Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Thethreetiermodelforidentifyinglearningdisabilities:Criticalprogramfeaturesandsystemissues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Kriete, R. (1999). The morning meeting book. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

Lee, C. C. (2005). Urban school counseling: Context, characteristics, and competencies. ProfessionalSchoolCounseling,8,184–188.

Lee, V. V., & Goodnough, G. E. (2007). Creating a systemic, data-driven school counseling program. In B. T. Erford, Transformingtheschoolcounselingprofession(2nd ed., pp. 121–141). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002). School change and inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. PhiDeltaKappan,84, 65–72.

Myrick, R. C. (2003). Developmental guidance and counseling:Apracticalapproach (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Conditionofeduca-tion. Washington, DC: Author.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 335 (1973).Salend, S. J., & Garrick Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclu-

sion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. RemedialandSpecialEducation,20, 114–126.

Stone, C., & Dahir, C. (2006). Thetransformedschoolcounselor. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential prob-lems. LearningDisabilitiesResearchandPractice,18,137–146.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., & Liston, A. (2005). Suc-cessful inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. AmericanSecondaryEducation,33, 33–50.

Wittmer, J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Teachingchildren to respectand care for others. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

Wittmer, J., & Clark, M. A. (2007). Managingyourschoolcounselingprogram:K–12developmentalstrategies (3rd ed.) Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation.

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress and students with dis-abilities. TeachingExceptionalChildren,38,32–39.

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, M. R. Bloodworth, R. P. Weiss-berg, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Buildingacademicsuccessonsocialandemotionallearning:Whatdoestheresearchsay?(pp. 3–22). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.